Chapter IX: Part 9

“‘Near the Church of the Blessed Mary of Wolcherchehawe, is a certaine Cattle-Fold called _les Stocks_, ordained for Butchers and Fishmongers, where the same may sell flesh and fish; the rent of which is uncertain, because any greater or smaller value arises from the way in which places in it may be occupied by the Butchers upon Flesh-days, and by the Fishmongers on Fish-days. Upon this Cattle-stall are three mansions, and one slaughter-house, built above it, the principal of which mansions is towards Cornhill, being now held by William Vale, Fishmonger, and it yields to London Bridge, yearly, 30_s._ Also, on the West side, towards the Conduit, is another mansion, held by John Louekyn, Fishmonger, which pays yearly 20_s._ Also there is another little mansion in the middle of the house upon the Stocks on the North side, paying 10_s._ Also on the South part of the Stocks is a slaughter-house, for which rent is not paid. Total 60_s._ And in the stalls aforesaid, called the Stocks, are places measured for the Fishmongers’ tables, namely four feet and a half and two thumbs breadth in length, and called _Poulisset_, having legs, the which places are occupied by the Butchers on Flesh-days at the price of 4_d._ the week. And the same places are occupied by the Fishmongers on Fish-days, at the price of 3_d._ by the week. Of these places there are 19 on the South part next the Church; 18 on the North; 15, in one row, in the middle of the house on the South; and at the Eastern front of the said house are four places for Fishmongers, three of which are occupied by Butchers on the Flesh-days. In the West front of the said house are two places, occupied as well by Butchers as by Fishmongers; but the certain amount of the rents of these cannot be ascertained, because any of the aforesaid places may be occupied or not, and thus a larger or a smaller sum may appear upon the account-rolls of the gate-keepers of the place aforesaid, in different weeks and years. Without the Stocks, at the West front, are five places for Fishmongers, where, on Fish-days, they sell their fish; and, on Flesh-days, three of them are occupied by the Butchers. There are also 22 places and a half under the walls of the house, appointed for Butchers to sell flesh on Flesh-days; whereof 18 places are under the North wall, and 4 places and a half are under the wall of the Eastern front, of which places the value, when they are occupied, is 4_d._ per week: but now they are not fully engaged, and therefore no certain sum can be stated.’

“‘Also, it is to be known that the gifts, legacies, and oblations of the Corbell-Chapel, standing on the Bridge, with’--the Pontage from--‘the carts carrying bread for sale crossing over it, and the passage of vessels under it, are uncertain in amount, because they may be greater or less in value, as they appear in the account-rolls of the Keepers of the said Bridge for different years.’

“The Survey concludes with an abstracted list of rents paid by London Bridge for lands and tenements held in various places, both in, and out of, the City; but as I have already given you several particulars of these, and as they do not contain any great additional information, I shall but observe from them that their total amount appears to be £20. 0. 9-1/4_d._; and as we are occasionally informed that the lands were let out to farm, we may conclude that the Bridge-keepers were amply recompensed for the payment of a sum even so great as this. The disbursements of London Bridge were, indeed, always considerable, for Stow observes in his ‘_Survey_,’ page 59, that the account of William Mariner and Christopher Elliott, Wardens of that edifice, from Michaelmas, in the 22nd year of Henry VII.--1506,--to the Michaelmas ensuing, amounted to £815. 17_s._ 2-1/2_d._, all payments and allowances included.

“We must now set sail again on the ocean of English History, as it is connected with London Bridge; and you are to remember that we are yet in the reign of King Henry VI., though we have mentioned a multitude of dates since the commencement of our digression: and the next event in its Chronicles, relates to the destruction of a considerable portion of it in the year 1437. I have already cited to you some of the writings of William of Worcester, and in another work of which he was also the author, entitled ‘_Annales Rerum Anglicarum_,’ he gives a slight notice of this event, which you will find in the edition printed in Hearne’s ‘_Liber Niger_,’ volume ii. page 458, taken from an autograph manuscript in the Library of the College of Arms. The best accounts, however, are furnished by Fabyan, on page 433, of his Chronicle, and by Stow in his ‘_Annals_,’ page 376. From these we learn that on Monday, January the 14th, the Great Stone Gate, and Tower standing upon it, next Southwark, fell suddenly down into the River, with two of the fairest arches of the same Bridge: ‘and yet,’ adds the habitually pious Stow, ‘no man perished in body, which was a great worke of God.’

“In the year 1440, the Annals of London Bridge became again interwoven with the great historical events of the kingdom, which impart such dignity to its own records, inasmuch as the Bridge-Street, by which is meant as well the passage over the Thames as the main street beyond it on each side, was one scene of the public penance of Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester, for Witchcraft. The inflexible honesty of the Duke, who was Protector of England during the minority of Henry VI., and presumptive heir to the crown, had created a violent party against him, the heads of which were Cardinal Henry Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, and William de la Pole, first Duke of Suffolk. With regard to his Sovereign, however, not all the spies, which were placed about Humphrey Plantagenet, Duke of Gloucester, by these powerful and inveterate enemies, could find even a pretence for the slightest charge; though that which they were unable to discover in him, they found in his Duchess, who was then accused of Witchcraft and High Treason: it being asserted that she had frequent conferences with one Sir Roger Bolinbroke, a Priest, who was supposed to be a necromancer, and Margaret Jourdain, a witch, of Eye, near Westminster; assisted and advised by John Hum, a Priest, and Thomas Southwell, Priest, and Canon of St. Stephen’s, Westminster. Shakspeare, in his ‘_Second Part of Henry the Sixth_,’ Act i. Scenes 2 and 4, and Act ii. Scenes 1 and 4, has recorded several particulars of this circumstance; and makes the Duchess ask some questions concerning the King’s fate; though she was, in reality, charged with having his image made of wax, which, being placed before a slow fire, should cause his strength to decay as the wax melted. The result of the enquiry was, that Jourdain was burned in Smithfield; Southwell died before his execution, in the Tower; Bolingbroke was hanged, drawn, and quartered, at Tyburn; and, on November the 9th, the Duchess was sentenced to perform public penance at three open places in London. On Monday the 13th, therefore, she came by water from Westminster, and, landing at the Temple-bridge, walked, at noon-day, through Fleet-street, bearing a waxen taper of two pounds weight to St. Paul’s, where she offered it at the High Altar. On the Wednesday following she landed at the Old Swan, and passed through Bridge-street and Grace-Church-street to Leadenhall, and at Cree-Church, near Aldgate, made her second offering: and on the ensuing Friday, she was put on shore at Queen-Hythe, whence she proceeded to St. Michael’s Church, Cornhill, and so completed her penance. In each of these processions her head was covered only by a kerchief, her feet were bare; scrolls, containing a narrative of her crime, were affixed to her white dress, and she was received and attended by the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Companies of London.

“The leading features of these events are of course in all the numerous volumes of English History, but for the more particular circumstances I must refer you to Stow’s ‘_Annals_,’ pages 381, 382; to folio lxiiii. a, of the Chronicle of Edward Hall, an eminent Lawyer who died in 1547, and whose work is entitled ‘_The Vnion of the two Noble Houses of Lancastre and Yorke_,’ London, 1550, folio; and, finally, to the Harleian Manuscript No. 565, page 96 a. Of which latter most curious work we now take leave, for soon after recording this event it terminates imperfectly; though I may observe, that when speaking of the fate of Roger Bolingbroke, on page 96 b, it adds, concerning him, that the same day on which he was condemned at Guildhall, he ‘was drawe fro y^e Tower of London to Tiborn and there hanged, hedyd, and quartered, and his heed set up on London Bridge.’ His quarters were disposed of at Hereford, Oxford, York, and Cambridge.

“In 1444, William de la Pole, whom I have just mentioned, was one of the King’s Ambassadors in France, when, with his usual lofty and impetuous spirit, he suddenly proposed a marriage between Henry VI., and Margaret, daughter of Réné, Duke of Anjou, and titular King of Jerusalem, Sicily, Arragon, Valence, &c. without any instructions from his Sovereign, or even acquainting his fellow-commissioners with his design. Notwithstanding the Duke of Gloucester opposed this union at the Council Board in England, yet the Earl managed his proposal so skilfully, that he procured himself to be created a Duke, and despatched into France to bring over the Queen: and on Thursday, the 22nd of April, 1445, she was consequently married to Henry at Tichfield Abbey, Southwick, in the County of Southampton. It was, probably, in her way from Eltham Palace to Westminster, before her Coronation, that she was greeted by the famous pageants prepared for her on London Bridge, on Friday, the 28th of May; for you will remember that she was crowned at Westminster Abbey, on Sunday, the 30th of the month, by John Stafford, Archbishop of Canterbury. However it might be, she was met at several places by many persons of rank, with numerous attendants having their sleeves embroidered, or decorated in the most costly manner, with badges of beaten goldsmith’s work; and especially by the Duke of Gloucester, who received her with 500 men habited in one livery. At Blackheath, according to custom, the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Aldermen, clothed in scarlet, attended her with the several City companies, all mounted and dressed in blue gowns, having embroidered sleeves and red hoods: and in this manner Queen Margaret and her followers were conducted through Southwark and the City, ‘then beautified,’--says Stow in his ‘_Annals_,’ page 384, where he relates all these particulars,--‘with pageants of diuers histories, and other showes of welcome, maruellous costly and sumptuous.’ He gives, however, but a very brief statement of them in his printed book; though in his Manuscripts, several of which are extant in the Harleian Collection in the British Museum, there are the very verses spoken to the Queen on the Bridge, composed, as he says, by John Lydgate. The Manuscript I allude to, is one to which I have already made a reference, being No. 542, a small quarto volume written on antique paper, in Stow’s own plain, but minute hand-writing. In this volume, therefore, article 16, on page 101 a, is entitled, ‘_The speches in the pagiaunts at y^e cominge of Qwene Margaret wyfe to Henry the syxt of that name Kynge of England, the 28th of Maye, 1445, y^e 23rd of his reigne_.’ The first pageant, which was an allegorical representation of Peace and Plenty, was erected at the foot of London Bridge, and the motto attached to it was ‘_Ingredimini et replete Terram_,’--Enter ye and replenish the earth,--taken from Genesis ix. according to the Vulgate Latin. The verses addressed to Queen Margaret were as follow:--

‘Most Christian Princesse, by influence of grace,
Doughter of Jherusalem, owr plesáunce
And joie, welcome as ever Princess was,
With hert entier, and hoole affiáunce:
Cawser of welthe, ioye, and abundáunce,
Youre Citee, yowr people, your subgets all,
With hert, with worde, with dede, your highnesse to aváunce,
Welcome! Welcome! Welcome! vnto you call.’

“Upon the Bridge itself appeared a pageant representing Noah’s Ark, bearing the words ‘_Jam non ultra irascar super terram_,’--Henceforth there shall no more be a curse upon the earth,--Genesis viii. 21. and the following verses were delivered before it:--

‘So trustethe your people, with assuráunce
Throwghe yowr grace, and highe benignitie.--
’Twixt the Realmes two, England and Fraunce,
Pees shall approche, rest and vnité:
Mars set asyde with all his crueltyé,
Whiche too longe hathe trowbled the Realmes twayne;
Bydynge yowr comforte, in this adversité,
Most Christian Princesse owr Lady Soverayne.

Right as whilom, by God’s myght and grace,
Noé this arké dyd forge and ordayne;
Wherein he and his might escape and passe
The flood of vengeaunce cawsed by trespasse:
Conveyed aboute as god list him to gye.
By meane of mercy found a restinge place
Aftar the flud, vpon this Armonie.

Vnto the Dove that browght the braunche of peas,--
Resemblinge yowr symplenesse columbyne,--
Token and signé that the flood shuld cesse,
Conducte by grace and power devyne;
Sonne of comfort ’gynneth faire to shine
By yowr presence whereto we synge and seyne
Welcome of ioye right extendet lyne
Moste Christian Princesse, owr Lady Sovereyne.’

“We shall here take our leave of the poet Lydgate, by whose descriptive verses we have illustrated three splendid scenes in the history of London Bridge; and I pray you, if it be but in gratitude for this single circumstance, reject, as malignant and untrue, the character given of him by Ritson, when he calls him a ‘voluminous, prosaick, and drivelling Monk.’ Warton is not only more liberal, but more just, in his estimate, when he says that ‘no poet had greater versatility of talents, and that he moves with equal ease in every mode of composition.’ He admits that he was naturally verbose and diffuse, tedious and languid: but he asserts, also, that he had great excellence in flowery description; that he increased the power of the English language; and that he was the first of our writers whose style is clothed with modern perspicuity. ‘His Muse was of universal access,’ he continues, ‘and he was not only the poet of his monastery, but of the world.’ Alike happy in composing a Masque, a Disguising, a May-game, a Pageant, a Mummery, or a Carol, for Ritson’s list of his poems, amounting to 251, embraces all these, and numerous other subjects.

“The year 1450 was made memorable by the daring insurrection of Jack Cade and the commons of Kent, which arose, partly, out of the popular belief that the Duke of Suffolk had caused the loss of a great portion of France to the English Crown; and, partly, from the pretensions of Richard, Duke of York, to the throne; in consequence of the haughtiness, despotism, and usurpation of Queen Margaret, and William De la Pole, her favourite. After some vain attempts to satisfy the commons concerning the Duke of Suffolk, King Henry banished him from the realm for five years; when after his embarkation his vessel was chased by an English ship called the Nicholas, belonging to the Constable of the Tower, by which it was captured, the Duke seized, and his head struck off on the side of a boat in Dover-roads; after which, it was carelessly cast with the body upon the sands. This murder, however, did not restore quietness to England, for the Duke of York being thus relieved from a powerful enemy, immediately proceeded in his own designs upon the Crown. By his instigation, therefore, one John Cade assumed the name of Sir John Mortimer, of the house of March, who, in reality, had been beheaded in 1425, on a charge of treason. Cade was a native of Ireland, and formerly a servant to Sir Thomas Dacre, Knight, of Sussex; but having cruelly murdered a pregnant woman, he took sanctuary, and forsware the kingdom. With such a character, he began his work of reformation in Kent, in May, 1450; assuming also, as some tell us, the title of John Amendall, and easily drew so many malcontents together, that, in a few days, he was enabled to approach London, and to encamp with his rebel forces upon Blackheath. When Henry marched against him, he retired into a wood near Sevenoaks; where he remained, until the King, supposing his followers dispersed, returned to London, and contented himself with despatching after them a detachment of his army commanded by Sir Humphrey Stafford; which division falling into the ambush, was cut in pieces, and its leader slain. Elated by this success, Cade again marched towards London, whilst Henry and his Court retreated to Kenilworth Castle in Warwickshire; leaving a garrison in the Tower, under command of the Lord Scales. The rebels, however, now became increased by multitudes, which joined them from all parts; and on Wednesday, the 1st of July, Cade arrived in Southwark, where he lodged at the Hart, for, says Alderman Fabyan, in his ‘_Chronicle_,’ from whom Stow almost verbally copies this story, ‘he might not be suffered to enter the Citie.’ Jack Cade, however, had but too many friends within the gates of London. The Commons of Essex were already in arms, and were mustered in a field at Mile-end; and upon a discussion in the Court of Common-Council on the propriety of admitting the rebels over the Bridge, the loyal-hearted Alderman Robert Horne so incensed the populace, by speaking warmly against the motion, that they were not reduced to order until he was committed to Newgate. About five o’clock then, on the afternoon of Thursday, July 2nd, London stained her Annals by opening the Bridge-gates to Cade, and his rabble rout. As he crossed the Draw-bridge, he cut with his sword the ropes which supported it; and on entering into the City, so beguiled the inhabitants, and even Nicholas Wilford, or Wyfold, the Lord Mayor, that he procured a free communication between his followers and London, though he himself again withdrew to his lodging in Southwark.

“In Shakspeare’s vivid scenes of this rebellion, in his ‘_Second Part of King Henry the Sixth_,’ Act iv., Scene 4th, a messenger tells King Henry,--

‘Jack Cade hath gotten London Bridge; the Citizens
Fly and forsake their houses:’--

and in the next scene a Citizen says, ‘they have won the Bridge, killing all that withstand them.’ In Scene 6th, Cade cries, ‘Go and set London-Bridge on fire;’ and Edmund Malone, in his note upon this passage, tells us, what we certainly cannot find by any other history, that ‘at that time London Bridge was built of _wood_;’ adding, from Hall, that ‘the houses on London Bridge were, in this rebellion, burnt, and many of the inhabitants perished.’ This note you may see in the Variorum edition of ‘_Shakspeare’s Plays_,’ by Isaac Reed, London, 1803, 8vo., volume xiii., page 341. London Bridge, however, was not even yet entirely captured, and two robberies which Cade had committed in the City, speedily roused the wealthier inhabitants to a sense of his outrage, and their own danger. Whereupon, ‘what do they,’ as honest John Bunyan says of the Captains in Mansoul, ‘but like so many Samsons shake themselves?’ and send unto the Lord Scales, and the valiant Matthew Gough, at the Tower, for assistance. The latter of these commanders was appointed to aid the City, whilst the former supported him with a frequent discharge of ordnance; and on the night of Sunday, July 5th, Cade being then in Southwark, the City Captains, the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of London mounted guard upon the Bridge. ‘The rebelles,’ says Hall in his ‘_Chronicle_,’ folio lxxviii. a, which contains the best version of the story,--‘the rebelles, which neuer soundly slepte, for feare of sodayne chaunces, hearing the Bridge to be kept and manned, ran with greate haste to open the passage, where betwene bothe partes was a ferce and cruell encounter. Matthew Gough, more experte in marciall feates than the other Cheuetaynes of the Citie, perceiuing the Kentishmen better to stand to their tacklyng than his ymagination expected, aduised his company no farther to procede toward Southwarke, till the day appered; to the entent, that the Citizens hearing where the place of the ieopardye rested, might occurre their enemies and releue their frendes and companions. But this counsail came to smal effect: for the multitude of the rebelles drave the Citizens from the stoulpes,’--wooden piles,--‘at the Bridge foote, to the Drawe-bridge, and began to set fyre in diuers houses. Alas! what sorow it was to beholde that miserable chaunce: for some desyringe to eschew the fyre lept on hys enemies weapon, and so died: fearfull women, with chyldren in their armes, amased and appalled lept into the riuer; other, doubtinge how to saue them self betwene fyre, water, and swourd, were in their houses suffocate and smoldered, yet the Captayns nothyng regarding these chaunces, fought on this Draw-Bridg all the nyghte valeauntly, but in conclusion the rebelles gat the Draw-Bridge and drowned many, and slew John Sutton, Alderman, and Robert Heysande, a hardy Citizen, with many other, besyde Matthew Gough, a man of greate wit, much experience in feates of chiualrie, the which in continuall warres had valeauntly serued the King, and his father, in the partes beyond the sea. But it is often sene, that he which many tymes hath vanquyshed his enemies in straunge countreys, and returned agayn as a conqueror, hath of his owne nation afterward been shamfully murdered and brought to confusion. This hard and sore conflict endured on the Bridge till ix. of the clocke in the mornynge in doubtfull chaunce and Fortune’s balaunce: for some tyme the Londoners were bet back to the stulpes at Sainct Magnes Corner; and sodaynly agayne the rebelles were repulsed and dryuen back to the stulpes in Southwarke, so that both partes beynge faynte, wery, and fatygate, agreed to desist from fight, and to leue battayll till the next day, vpon condition that neyther Londoners shoulde passe into Southwarke, nor the Kentish men into London.’ William Rastall, who produced his curious Chronicle, called ‘_The Pastimes of People_,’ in the year 1529, adds to this account, that ‘the Kentysshemen brent the Brydge;’ see page 265 of the excellent edition of that work, by the Rev. T. F. Dibdin, D. D. &c. London, 1811, quarto.

“During the truce that followed this most valiant defence of London Bridge, and which nearly effaced the deep stain of the Citizens opening their gates to a rebel, a general pardon was procured for Cade and his followers, by John Stafford, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord High Chancellor. Upon which, some accepted of the King’s grace, and all began, by degrees, to withdraw from Southwark with their spoil, whilst Cade himself was soon after slain by Alexander Iden, Esquire, of Kent, in consequence of a reward being offered for his apprehension. His dead body was brought to London, and his head erected on the Bridge-gate, where he had so recently placed that of one of his greatest victims, Sir James Fynes, Lord Say, Treasurer of England. Concerning these events see also Shakspeare’s ‘_Second Part of King Henry the Sixth_,’ Act iv., Scenes 7th and 10th; Fabyan’s ‘_Chronicle_,’ pages 451-453; and Stow’s ‘_Annals_,’ pages 391, 392.

“I have but little more to subjoin to close the history of this rebellion; but I may add, that in January 1451, twenty-six of the Kentish rebels were tried before the King and his Justices Itinerant, and executed at Dover, and other places in the County; and that on Tuesday, February 23rd, as Henry returned to London, great numbers more met him on Blackheath, dressed in their shirts only, and imploring his clemency on their knees, were all pardoned. Against his entering the City, nine heads of those who had been executed were erected on London Bridge, that of their leader standing in the centre. ‘This,’ says Hall, in closing his account of Cade’s insurrection, ‘is the successe of all rebelles, and this fortune chaunceth ever to traytors: for where men striue against the streame, their bote neuer cometh to his pretensed porte.’

“In June 1461, previously to his Coronation, King Edward IV. crossed London Bridge with some ceremony, on the way from his Palace of Sheen to the Tower; whence it was anciently customary for the English Sovereigns to ride to Westminster in solemn procession the day before they were crowned. We have this information in an article printed by Hearne, and attached to his ‘_Thomæ Sprotti Chronica_.’ Oxford, 1719, 8vo. It is entitled ‘_A remarkable Fragment of an old English Chronicle, or History of the Affairs of King Edward the Fourth, Transcrib’d from an old MS_.;’ and on page 288, we find the following particulars. ‘The same xxvi^{th} of Juny, the King Edward movid from Sheene towardis London, then being Thursday;’--in reality though it was Friday, as this very extract subsequently shews--‘and upon the way receyvid him the Maire and his brethirn all in scarle, with iiii c commoners well horsid and cladde in grene, and so avauncing theime self passid the Bridge, and thurgh the Cite they rode streigte unto the Toure of London, and restid there all nigt.’ The day following, King Edward made 32 Companions of the Bath. He then proceeded to Westminster, attended by the new Knights habited in the white silk dress of the Order; and on the morrow,--which was St. Peter’s day, and Sunday,--he was crowned at Westminster by Thomas Bourchier, Archbishop of Canterbury.

“The revenues of London Bridge seem greatly to have flourished under the reign of this Sovereign, for in his 5th year, 1465, the Wardens of the same, Peter Alford and Peter Caldecot, paid, on account thereof, the immense sum of £731. 10_s._ 1-1/2; as you may see in Maitland’s ‘_History_,’ volume i., page 48, which information he has quoted from Stow’s ‘_Survey_.’ You, doubtless, remember, that although Edward IV. was, at this period of our history, seated on the English throne, yet that King Henry VI. was only deposed by the partizans of Edward Plantagenet, Earl of March, and son to the late Duke of York, and the Earl of Warwick, in March, 1461. In October 1470, therefore, Henry was again restored to his crown, which he retained with a disturbed sway for seven months only, and in April, 1471, was again imprisoned in the Tower, whence he had been taken to remount the throne. There were, however, not even then wanting some zealous adherents to the declining House of Lancaster, who made several brave, though unavailing efforts on the behalf of King Henry, Margaret of Anjou, and the young Edward, Prince of Wales. Under the sanction of their cause an impudent attack was made upon London in 1471, which forms an important feature in the history of this Bridge; which being mentioned by Stow in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page 61, is thence copied by all who have written its Annals. The Earl of Warwick had appointed to be Vice-Admiral of the Channel, one Thomas Neville, an illegitimate son to William, Lord Falconbridge, and thence called ‘the Bastard of Falconbridge.’ When he lost this employment, as he was a man alike devoid of morals and of money, he saw, says Rapin, with a very singular expression, ‘no other way to subsist than turning Pirate;’ for which, however, he probably required very little transmutation. As Edward was, at this time, engaged in pursuit of Elizabeth, his Queen, Falconbridge collected some ships, and a number of persons of desperate fortunes, and landing on the coast of Kent, intended no less than to surprise London, and enrich himself with the plunder of the City. He arrived in Southwark in May, giving out that he came to free King Henry from his captivity, and soon becoming possessed of that place, on Tuesday, the 14th, he ordered 3000 of his followers to cross the river in boats, and assault Ald-Gate and Bishops-Gate, whilst he himself attempted to force the Bridge. This he endeavoured to effect by firing it, by which he destroyed sixty houses standing upon it; though the Citizens were so well provided with ordnance, that even if the passage had been entirely open, says an ancient Chronicler, ‘they should have had hard entering that way.’ It is singular, however, that in this account of the number of the houses burned on London Bridge, Stow should be so greatly at variance with the earlier Historians; since they state it to be sixty, whilst, in his ‘_Survey_,’ he says only that Falconbridge ‘burned the Gate and all the houses to the Draw-Bridge, being at that time _thirteen_ in number.’ It is, perhaps, possible that the old Citizen is in the right; and that the other Annalists include some of those buildings which were destroyed in the suburbs of Southwark.

“One of the bravest defenders of London Bridge was Ralph Joceline, Alderman and Draper, afterwards made a Knight of the Bath, and Lord Mayor, in 1464 and 1476; since he not only manfully resisted Falconbridge and his party, when they attacked the Draw-Bridge, but upon their retiring, as they were at last forced to do, as well from the City as from the Bridge, he sallied forth upon them, and following them along the water-side beyond Ratcliffe, slew and captured very many of them. The Arms of this worthy were Azure, a mullet within a circular wreath Argent and Sable, having four hawk’s bells joined thereto in quadrature, Or. I have given you these particulars from Stow’s ‘_Annals_,’ page 424; from Holinshed’s ‘_Chronicle_,’ volume ii., page 690; and from Fabyan’s ‘_Chronicle_,’ page 590; in which last authority it is added that ‘the Bastarde, with his shipmen, wer chased vnto their shippes lying at Blackewall, and there in the chase many slaine. And the saied Bastarde, the night followyng, stale out his shippes out of the riuer and so departed, and escaped for that tyme.’

“Another record of the destruction of part of London Bridge, marks the year 1481, for page 61 of volume i. of Stow’s ‘_Survey_,’ informs us, that a house called ‘_the Common Stage_,’ then fell down into the Thames, and by its fall five men were drowned. What this building really was, you may see in Holinshed’s ‘_Chronicle_,’ volume ii., page 705, where this fact is quoted from the volume entitled ‘_Scala Temporum_,’ or, the Ladder of the Times, a contemporary record of remarkable occurrences.

“We are indebted to that singularly curious work, known by the name of ‘_Arnold’s Chronicle_,’ for an account of the expenses of London Bridge in several of the latter years of the fifteenth century, beginning with 1482, and terminating with 1494. The best edition of this volume is that edited by Francis Douce, Esq., London, 1811, quarto, for the series of modern reprints of ancient English Chronicles, which appeared about that time. The modern title of the book is ‘_The Customs of London, otherwise called Arnold’s Chronicle_;’ but in its original state it was devoid of a Title-page, the Table of Contents being headed thus: ‘In this booke is conteyned the names of y^e Bayliffs, Custos, Mairs, and Sherefs of the Cite of London, from the tyme of King Richard the Furst; and also th’ Artycles of the Chartur and Libarties of the same Cyte; and of the Chartur and Libarties off England, wyth odur dyuers matters good for euery Citezen to vndirstond and knowe; whiche ben shewid in Chaptirs after the fourme of this kalendir following.’ The first edition of ‘_Arnold’s Chronicle_’ is usually supposed to have been printed by John Doesborowe, at Antwerp, about the year 1502, in small folio; though it is without either date, or name of place, or Printer. It seems that Richard Arnold himself was a Citizen and Haberdasher, who resided in the Parish of St. Magnus, London Bridge, where he flourished in the year 1519. His work is a most singular compilation, for it not only contains all the subjects which I have already named to you, but numerous others which seem to have no sort of connection with it: such, for instance, as forms for legal instruments, ‘the crafte to make a water to haue spottys out of clothe;’--‘the vij ægesse of the worlde fro Adam forewarde;’--‘the crafte of graffyng and plantyng of tryes;’--‘to make a pickell too kepe fresh sturgeon in;’ and the ancient original of Prior’s beautiful ballad of the Nut-brown Maid! But now to shew you its references to London Bridge in particular, I must observe that one of its articles is entitled ‘The lerning for to make a count by y^e yerly rentis of London Brygge, Fo. 270;’ nearly all of Arnold’s examples being given from real and public documents: indeed, he was, as Mr. Douce observes of him, ‘a very active, and even a meddling character.’ To that activity and meddling, however, we owe too much extremely valuable information, to visit his sins of officious curiosity with any very severe censure; or to blame him too violently for having compiled his volume of such very singular materials. The first extract from these Account-rolls is for 1482, and is as follows:--

“‘The Yerely stint of the Lyuelod belonging to London Brydge. Fyrst, for all maner ressaitis in y^e yere vii. C. _li._ or therabout;’ namely £700. ‘The Chargis goyng out.

_Li._ _s._ _d._

‘For wagis and fees of the Officers lxix. vj. viij.
Item, for rewardis of the Officers xxiij. vj. viij.
Item, paid out for quyt rentis xxx. xiiij. vj.
Item, for quyt rentis dekayed ix. iij. viij.
Item, for vacacions xxx. -- --
Item, for costis of the Chapell xxxiiij. v. iij.
Item, the expencis vpon the Auditors -- xl. --
-------------------------
Somme of this parte C.lxxxxviij. xvj. ix. £198. 16_s._ 9_d._
Rest cler v.C.i. iij. iij. £501. 3_s._ 3_d._’

“As there is not in this account any mention of the particular salaries actually received by the Bridge Keepers, I must refer you for information to a modern copy of some ancient documents, entitled ‘_An Account of the Fees or Salaries and Rewards of the Wardens or Keepers of London Bridge, from the 20th year of the reign of King Edward IV. Ann. Dom. 1482, to the present year, 1786, stating the times when their salaries were augmented, and also the Rental, or yearly income of the Bridge-House estate at each particular period._’ Single folio sheet.--‘A. D. 1482. William Galle and Henry Bumsted, Wardens, to the said Wardens because of their office, to either of them, £10. Also for their Clothing, or Livery, to each, £1. Also allowed to the said Wardens, in reward for their attendance and good provision done in their office this year, to either of them as hath been allowed in years past, £10. Total to each of them, £21. Total Income, or Rental of the Bridge-House Estate this Year, £650. 13_s._ 7-1/2_d._’

“I regret, Mr. Barbican, and I am very sure that _you_ do, that our Bridge Annals must, for some few years, be carried on principally by these documents; for I do not, in my limited reading, find any more interesting matter to record in them. Thus much, however, may be said in their defence, that we may certainly learn from them the increasing prosperity of the Bridge, and discover, in the items of their charges, many a curious fragment of the ancient value of money, and the articles contained in them. Having thus then, Mr. Geoffrey, deprecated your wrath against these matters, which certainly are somewhat dull in the recital, I proceed to the accounts of London Bridge for the years 1483-85, as they are given in ‘_Arnold’s Chronicle_.’

‘The Acompte of Willyam Galle and Hery Bumpsted, Wardeyns of London Bredge, from Mychelmasse Anno xxij. Edw. iiij. into Mychelmasse after, and ij yeres folowynge. The Charge. First the areragis of the last acompte, ij. C. lxvij. _li._ xiiij. _s._ _ob._’--£267. 14_s._ 0-1/2. ‘Item, all maner resaytis the same yere, vij. C. xlvi. _li._ xvi. _s._ _ob._ Somma, M. xiiij. _li._ x. _s._ i. _d._’--£1014. 10_s._ 1_d._ ‘Allowans and paymentis the same yere, vij. C. xliiij. _li._ x. _s._ ij. _d._ _ob._ Rest that is owyng ij. C. lxx. _li._ xix. _s._ x. _d._ _ob._--Wherof is dew by Edward Stone and odur, of ther arrearagis in ther tyme, liij. _li._ vj. _s._ vj. _d._ _ob._ Item, ther is diew by the sayd Wyllyam Galle and Hery Bumpstede, Somma, ij. C. xvij. _li._ xiij. _s._ iiij. _d._’

‘The acompte the next yere suyng, from Mychelmasse in the first yere of the reign of King Rycharde the iij. vnto Mychelmasse next folowyng, the space of an hole yere. The Charge.

_Li._ _s._ _d._

‘First the Areragis of the last acompte ij.C.xvij. xiij. iiij.
Item, proper rentis v.C.lxviij. xij. iiij.
Item, foreine rente lix. xi. v. ob.
Item, ferme of the Stockis lix. ix. xi.
Item, quite rente xxxi. xij. vj.
Item, passage of cartis xx. xij. vij.
Item, incrementis of rentis -- vj. vj.
Item, casuell ressaitis vi. -- --

“‘Somma of all their charge, ix.C.lxiij. _li._ vii. _s._ ix. _d._ _ob._

“Allouaunce and Dischargis the same yere. Fyrst, in quyt rentis, xxx. _li._ xiiij. _s._ vj. _d._ To Saint Mary Spytell, w^t annuities, l. _s._ viij. _d._ Item, decay of quyt rente, ix. _li._ iij. _s._ viij. _d._ _ob._ Item, allowaunce for store-houses, xxxv. _s._ iiij. _d._ Item, in vacacions, xxxiiij. _li._ xvij. _s._ iij. _d._ Item, in decrements, iij. _li._ vij. _s._ i. _d._ Item, allowaunce for money delyuerd to the Mayre, xl. _li._ Item, for buying of stone, xvij. _li._ xiij. _s._ iiij. _d._ Item, for buying of tymbre, lath, and bord, li. _li._ xi. _s._ v. _d._ Item, for buying of tyle and brik, xiij. _li._ ix. _s._ iij. _d._ Item, for buying of chalke, lime, and sond, xxiiij. _li._ xi. _s._ xi. _d._ Item, for yren werke, xxxij. _li._ viij. _s._ iij. _d._ _q._ Item, requisites bought, xviij. _li._ viij. _s._ iiij. _d._ Item, in expencis, viij. _li._ xviij. _s._ xi. _d._ Item, costis of cariage, xij. _li._ xix. _s._ vj. _d._ Item, led and sowder, xiij. _li._ viij. _s._ Item, for glasyng, xxxvij. _s._ i. _d._ Item, costis of the rame, xxxiij. _li._ vj. _s._ ix. _d._ Item, masons wagis, xlviij. _li._ xviij. _s._ iiij. _d._ _ob._ Item, Carpenters wages, C. xiiij. _li._ v. _s._ Item, laborers wages, xxij. _li._ x. _s._ ix. _d._ _ob._ Item, Costis of the Chapel, xxxiij. _li._ v. _s._ iij. _d._ Item, the wagis of the tylers, xij. _li._ xij. _s._ vi. _d._ Item, for wagis of the dawbir, xij. _li._ vi. _s._ Item, for sawiars, xij. _li._ xv. _s._ vi. _d._ Item, for wagis of paviours, xviij. _s._ viij. _d._ Item, to the Baker at the Cok, l. _s._ Item, for fees and wagis of Officers, lxix. _li._ vi. _s._ viij. _d._ Rewardis of Officers, xxiij. _li._ vi. _s._ viij. _d._ Item, expencis vpon the auditours, xlij. _s._ viij. _d._ Somme of all the paymentis and allowaunce, vij. C. xx. _li._ ix. _s._ iiij. _d._ _qu._:’ or £720. 9_s._ 4-1/4_d._ ‘Reste, CC. xlij. _li._ xviij. _s._ vi. _d._ _qu._ Wherof is owynge and dieu by Edward Stone, for arereage in his tyme, Somma liiij. _li._ vi. _s._ vi. _d._ Item, by W. Galle and H. Bumpsted, C. lxxxix. _li._ xi. _s._ xi. _d._ _ob._ _qu._’

“The last document of this nature recorded in ‘_Arnold’s Chronicle_,’ is for the year 1484, and it contains the following particulars.--‘Ther Acompte, Anno ij. Ric. Tercij. The Charge. First, the arreragis of ther last acompte, C. lxxxix. _li._ xi. _s._ xi. _d._ _ob._ _qu._ Item, all maner ressaitis, vii. C. xliiij. _li._ x. _s._ v. _d._ _qu._ Somma of the Charge, ix. C. xxxiiij. _li._ ij. _s._ iiij. _d._ Discharge. Fyrst, allowaunce of paymentis the same yere, vi. C. xxiij. _li._ iiij. _s._ x. _d._ Soo there remayneth the somme CCC. x. _li._ xvij. _s._ v. _d._ _ob._ Wherof is dieu by Edward Stone and other of their arrerage in their tyme, liij. _li._ vi. _s._ vi. _d._ _ob._ And soo remayneth clerly dieu by William Gale and Herry Bounsted CC. lvij. _li._ x. _s._ xi. _d._’ I must not omit to notice, before quitting these particulars of the ancient expenses of London Bridge, that they are to be found also printed in Maitland’s ‘_History_,’ volume i., pages 48, 49.

“We have frequently, in the course of these fragmenta, mentioned various officers set over the affairs of London Bridge, and some of the instruments which I have quoted, have shewn that several of them were anciently appointed by the King’s Writ or Patent. The principal of these Officers are two Bridge-Masters, having certain fees and profits, yearly elected, or continued, by the Livery at the Common Hall, held upon Midsummer day, after the Sheriffs and Chamberlain. Strype, the continuator of Stow’s ‘_Survey_,’ whose signature is J. S., states, in volume ii., page 25, that the Bridge-Master is some freeman elected by the City and set over the Bridge-House, ‘to look after the reparations of the Bridge;’ he adds, too, that ‘he hath a liberal salary allowed him; and that the place hath sometimes been a good relief for some honest citizens fallen to decay.’ We are also farther told by the same author, on page 472 of the same work and volume, that at a Court of Common Council, held on Friday, April 15th, 1491, in the 6th year of King Henry VII., it was enacted that at the election of Bridge-Master, the Lord Mayor and Aldermen should annually present four men to the Commonalty, from whom they were to elect two to be Bridge-Masters. This act appears to have been in force until Thursday, April the 15th, 1643, when it was repealed, and the whole election has since remained in the Livery. Of the names and ancient fees of these Bridge-Masters I have already given you some specimens, and shall cite you several others in the future years of our history.

“We must again be indebted to ‘_Arnold’s Chronicle_’ for a fragment illustrative of the property, persons, and houses, in the Parish of St. Magnus, and on London Bridge, in the year 1494; for on page 224 of that mass of singular information, we find an article entitled ‘_The Valew and stynt of the Benefyce of St. Magnus at London Brydge yerly to the Person. The Rekenyng of the same the fyrst day of Decembre, Anno Domini_ M. CCCC. lxxxxiiij.’ I am not going to give you the long bead-roll of names, rents, and rates which follow; but I shall observe that, at this period, the rents amounted to £434. 12_s._ 8_d._, and the offerings paid to the Parson came to £75. 8_s._ 8-1/2_d._ The rent of ‘the Shoppis in Brig-strett,’ amounted to £70. 3_s._ 4_d._, and their offerings to £12. 3_s._ 3_d._; but the only building that is mentioned as immediately connected with our present subject is ‘the Ymage of our Lady on the Brydge, valet iiij marke,’ or £2. 13_s._ 4_d._ You may, perhaps, remember that this very article from ‘_Arnold’s Chronicle_,’ was afterwards printed in a small volume commonly supposed to have been compiled by the learned Dr. Brian Walton, Bishop of Chester, and Editor of the famous London Polyglot Bible, in 1657. This tract is entitled ‘_A Treatise concerning the payment of Tythes and Oblations in London. By B. W., D. D._;’ 1641, 4to., and the original manuscript, written in an ancient hand on folio paper, is, to our delight, yet remaining in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth Palace, No. 273. Whilst I am speaking of this collection, I may observe that it contains another manuscript in which are some few curious particulars concerning the buildings on London Bridge. This is marked No. 272; was written in 1638, on folio paper; and is entitled ‘_A Catalogue of inhabitants of the several Parishes in London, with the rent of houses and tythes paid out of them; in order to a new settlement of Tythes_.’ The contents of this manuscript set forth not only the names of the dwellers in the various houses, but also ‘a moderate valuacion’ of them, ‘and other things tithable;’ wherein, however, it is added, of St. Magnus, that ‘the Parish would not ioyne.’ This district forms article 48 of the volume, and we find mentioned in it the following buildings ‘on London Bridge.’ ‘One great house, shop, warehouse, cellars, &c. clear value £50., Tithes, £1. 16_s._; it hath bin letten for above £8.’--‘One faire house and shop, part of the Little Nonesuch,’ value £40., Tythes, £1. 7_s._ 6_d._; and the same for the other part. ‘One Ale-cellar, Tythes, 3_s._’ On the South side of Great Thames Street, the following buildings are mentioned connected with the Bridge: ‘One house, wharf, and Engines to carry water, valued at £500. cleere profitt.’--‘One great house divided into divers tenements, Bridge-House Rents, over them, value £20.’

“In giving you these particulars, I must own that I have considerably anticipated the period to which they belong, but as it is my wish to say something of the history of St. Magnus’ Parish, it could scarcely be more properly introduced than when we were noticing the ancient amount of its tythes, &c. The earliest mention of the Church of St. Magnus is said by Pennant to be in 1433, though Stow speaks of several monuments considerably older; and if you will turn to Newcourt’s ‘_Repertorium Ecclesiasticum_,’ volume i., page 396, you will find that Hugh Pourt, one of the Sheriffs of London, in 1302, and Margaret his wife, founded a perpetual Chantry in this edifice: and further, that the list of Rectors commences with Robert de Sancto Albano, who resigned his office on the 31st of August, 1323. There was also a Guild, or Fraternity, called ‘Le Salve Regina,’ held in this Church, as Stow shows you in his ‘_Survey_,’ volume i., page 495, which was flourishing in the 17th year of Edward III.,--1343.--The intent of that convention will best be shewn by an extract from Stow’s translation of the certificate of this species of religious Benefit Society, which is as follows:--‘Be it remembered that Rauf Capeleyn, du Bailiff; William Double, Fishmonger; Roger Lowher, Chancellor; Henry Boseworth, Vintener; Stephen Lucas, Stock-Fishmonger; and other of the better sort of the Parish of St. Magnus, near the Bridge of London, of their great devotion, and to the honour of God and his glorious Mother, our Lady Mary the Virgin, began, and caused to be made a Chantry, to sing an Anthem of our Lady called ‘_Salve Regina_,’ every evening: and thereupon ordained five burning wax lights at the time of the said anthem, in the honour and reverence of the five principal joys of our Lady aforesaid, and for exciting the people to devotion at such an hour, the more to merit to their souls. And thereupon many other good people of the same Parish, seeing the great honesty of the said service and devotion, proferred to be aiders and parteners to support the said lights and the said anthem to be continually sung; paying to every person every week an halfpenny. And so that hereafter, with the gift that the people shall give to the sustentation of the said light and anthem, there shall be to find a Chaplain singing in the said Church for all the benefactors of the said light and anthem.’

“I do not find that the Patron Saint of this edifice is at all mentioned by Alban Butler; nor are all writers perfectly agreed as to who he actually was; seeing that there were two Saints named Magnus, whose festival day was kept on the 19th of August. One of these was Bishop of Anagnia in Italy, and was martyred in the persecution raised by the Emperors Decius and Valerian, about the middle of the third century after the Birth of Christ. The other St. Magnus; was the person to whom Newcourt supposes this Church was dedicated, though he erroneously calls his feast August the 18th. He is named, by way of distinction, St. Magnus the Martyr of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, because he suffered at that City, under Alexander the Governor, in the time of the Emperor Aurelian, A. D. 276. Having vainly endeavoured to make him do sacrifice, he caused him to be twice exposed to the flames of a furnace, and thrice to be thrown to wild beasts; but none of these things moving him, he was at length stoned, and when all imagined that he was dead, he suddenly prayed that his soul might have a peaceful exit, and presently gave up the ghost. An extended history of these famous men, you will find in that wonderful work the ‘_Acta Sanctorum_,’ which I have before quoted, in the third volume for August, pages 701-719: though there is a much longer account of the Swedish St. Magnus, the Abbot, whose festival is September the 6th, and whom I pray you never to mistake for the Martyr of London Bridge. The Rectory of St. Magnus, says the tract which I last quoted from the Lambeth Library, is rated higher in his Majesty’s books than any living in, or about, London, being valued at £69. and 40_s._ more in pensions, but is without any glebe attached to it. Before I close these _spicilegia_ of the rents, &c. of St. Magnus and London Bridge, I must observe to you that when Arnold is speaking in his ‘_Chronicle_’ of the fifteenths raised by every Ward in London, he states, at page 48, that the quarter of the Bridge itself, at a fifteenth, amounted to £14. 3_s._ 4_d._; and that the Bridge-street quarter produced £11. 5_s._ 8_d._ So much then for a few particulars of the history of this Church and Parish, the North-East boundary of London Bridge, to the Chronicles of which we shall now return, taking them up again with the year 1497.

“It was in this year, you may remember, that the forces of Henry VII., which were proceeding to Scotland, were suddenly recalled to subdue a commotion raised in Cornwall, in consequence of a subsidy voted by Parliament, in 1496. The rebels were headed by one Thomas Flamoke, a Lawyer and a gentleman; and a Blacksmith, or Farrier, of Bodmin, called Michael Joseph; both of them, says Stow, in his ‘_Annals_,’ page 479, ‘men of stout stomackes.’ Under these leaders, then, they penetrated even to Blackheath, but on their march were so valiantly opposed in Kent, that numbers of the insurgents fled from their company. On Blackheath the Royal troops were already encamped under several valiant commanders, by whom the rebels’ retreat was immediately cut off; and in a short engagement which ensued on June the 22nd, Flamoke and Joseph were both taken prisoners. On the 28th following they were executed at Tyburn; and their quarters were to have been erected in various places in Cornwall, but Hall states, in his ‘_Chronicle_,’ folio 43 b, that, as it was supposed it would incite the Cornishmen to new insurrections, they were set up in London: and their heads greeted Henry VII. on London Bridge, as he triumphantly returned over it from Blackheath.

“During this same year, London Bridge appears to have been repaired to some extent, although it is probable that the only notice of it may exist in the manuscript records of the Bridge Comptroller. In the ‘_Gentleman’s Magazine_,’ however, for October 1758, volume xxviii., page 469, is a Letter from Joseph Ames, Secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, and Author of the ‘_Typographical Antiquities_,’ containing three inscriptions engraven on stone, found in pulling down a part of the edifice. These, it is supposed, were laid in the building at the different times of its repair, specified by their several dates; but though so very ancient, yet the descriptive account states that, ‘they are all as fresh as if new cut;’ they being then in the possession of Mr. Hudson, the Bridge-Master. The oldest inscription is sculptured upon a stone 9-3/4 inches in height, by 16-3/4 inches long;

the letters being raised and blacked, and the words, within a border, being ‘_Anno Domini_,’ with the date of 1497, in small black-letters, and ancient Arabic figures. I shall introduce the other stones to your notice in the years to which they refer; and only now remark, that they are engraven in Plate 1, Numbers I. II. III. page 470, of the work to which I have already referred you, whence they were copied into Gough’s ‘_Sepulchral Monuments_,’ volume ii., part i., page cclxvi., plate xxv.